Winny Cheptoo Ngeno & 482 Others v County Public Service Board, County Government of Trans Nzoia & Another
The bottom line
#483 Trans Nzoia county workers won recognition as regular employees, but the court stopped short of making them permanent and pensionable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petition is competent
- 2.What was the nature of the employment relationship between the Petitioners and the Respondents?
- 3.Whether the Petitioners' rights were violated?
- 4.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Competency of the Petition (precision and authority of deponents)
Petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold; failure of some Petitioners to swear affidavits did not extinguish their claims
The Petitioners identified Articles 27, 28, 40 and 41 and set out the acts and omissions complained of, so the Respondents were not taken by surprise and filed a substantive response. All 483 Petitioners were named as parties, affidavits concerned common employment practices, and documentary evidence plus RW1's concessions confirmed the employment relationship.
Nature of the employment relationship
Petitioners are regular employees; their engagements converted by operation of law under section 37 of the Employment Act
Petitioners served continuously for two to twenty-two years, were paid monthly through bank accounts, were on the payroll with personal numbers, and performed work of a continuous nature. RW1 conceded continuous payment and that some were improperly designated casuals. Respondents produced no records showing intermittent engagement, and cannot rely on records they were obliged to keep.
Violation of constitutional rights
Respondents violated rights to fair labour practices (Article 41), equality, dignity and property (Articles 27, 28, 40)
Prolonged designation as casuals despite continuous service and monthly pay was inconsistent with section 37 and Article 41. Failure to issue written contracts as required by sections 9 and 10 violated statutory and constitutional rights. Respondents did not deny that Petitioners performed similar duties but were paid differently, proving discrimination.
Remedies
Declarations on conversion, entitlement to statutory safeguards and violation granted; written contracts ordered within 60 days; damages and monetary claims declined
Declarations vindicating employment status and the order for written contracts provided sufficient redress, so constitutional damages were unwarranted. Monetary claims failed as unproved special damages. The permanent-and-pensionable declaration was refused because section 37 does not provide for automatic appointment to such positions.
Legal principles established
#- Where a casual employee works for a period equivalent to not less than one month or performs work not completable within three months, the contract converts by operation of law to one where wages are paid monthly under section 37 of the Employment Act
- An employer cannot rely on the absence of employment records which it was statutorily required to maintain to defeat employees' claims
- Section 37 does not confer automatic appointment to permanent and pensionable positions in county public service
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Petitioners' employment ceased to be casual and converted, by operation of section 37 of the Employment Act, into regular contracts of service under which wages are payable monthly as provided under section 35(1)(c) of the Act
- 2.A declaration that the Petitioners are entitled to the rights, safeguards and minimum terms and conditions of employment prescribed under the Employment Act and relevant terms of employment for regular employees of the Respondents, including protection from unfair termination
- 3.A declaration that the Respondents violated the Petitioners' right to fair labour practices under Articles 27, 28, 40 and 41 of the Constitution by continuing to designate and treat them as casual employees after their contracts had converted by operation of law
- 4.The Respondents are directed to issue to each Petitioner a written contract setting out their respective terms and conditions of employment in compliance with sections 9, 10 and 37 of the Employment Act and relevant terms of service applicable to their regular employees within sixty days from the date of the Judgment
- 5.The Respondents shall bear the Petitioners' costs of the Petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 3, 10, 20, 27, 28 and 41 of the Constitution; Employment Act, 2007 (sections 2, 9, 10, 35(1)(c), 37)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the threat to terminate employment as casual, temporary or ghost workers is unlawful, null and void
No termination occurred; no completed decision capable of being declared null and void
Declaration that Petitioners automatically became permanent and pensionable employees
Section 37 converts casual employment to a monthly-wage contract, not automatic permanent and pensionable appointment; county appointments must comply with the County Governments Act and public-service framework
Award of constitutional damages
Declarations and the order for written contracts provide sufficient redress; damages are discretionary
Back underpaid salaries, house allowance, commuter allowance, annual leave, maternity and paternity leave pay
Special damages not specifically pleaded and strictly proved; no particulars, salary scales, job grades or computations for the 483 Petitioners
Costs
The Respondents shall bear the Petitioners' costs of the Petition.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Applying section 37 of the Employment Act and the reasoning in Bett to the evidence before the Court, the employment of the Petitioners cannot lawfully be casual.
The Respondents cannot rely on the absence of records which they were legally required to maintain to defeat the Petitioners' claims.
A declaration is hereby issued that the Petitioners' employment ceased to be casual and converted, by operation of section 37 of the Employment Act, into regular contracts of service under which wages are payable monthly as provided under section 35(1)(c) of the Act.
The Respondents are directed to issue to each Petitioner a written contract setting out their respective terms and conditions of employment in compliance with sections 9, 10 and 37 of the Employment Act and relevant terms of service applicable to their regular employees within sixty days from the date of this Judgment.
The Respondents shall bear the Petitioners' costs of the Petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition dated 25th September 2024 but alleges termination communication of 23rd September 2024
Directions issued 24th February 2026 and submissions dated 2026 despite 2024 filing; chronology unexplained
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Winny Cheptoo Ngeno & 482 Others v County Public Service Board, County Government of Trans Nzoia & Another", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E006 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2699/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.